Midlothian Council has refused to be drawn on reports that it is to delay the possible closure of five rural primary schools – but it has confirmed it is to extend the consultation period by a fortnight in the wake of fierce public criticism.

Under the local authority's education shake-up, Cranston, Cousland, Borthwick, Temple and Howgate could close at the end of June with the pupils being transferred to larger schools. Although a public consultation exercise is ongoing, reports started at the weekend suggesting that the closures were to be put back. Commenting on the speculation, Council Leader Adam Montgomery said: "Various options will be considered once the consultation period has ended and this will be one of the options.

"The views expressed either by email, letter, feedback form or verbally at the five public meetings, school board meetings and surgeries will be considered in light of all the information gathered throughout the consultation period."

Meanwhile, the council this week extended the consultation period for two weeks until April 30 after coming under fierce criticism at public meetings to discuss the proposals. Councillor Montgomery said: "In light of these comments we are happy to extend it to the end of April."

Emotion ran high at the second public consultation on Midlothian Council's extensive shake-up of the county's primary schools.

Around 200 people crammed into Greenhall Community Centre, Gorebridge, last Tuesday to discuss how the scheme would affect Gorebridge, Stobhill, Temple and Borthwick primaries.

Council Leader Adam Montgomery said Gorebridge Primary representatives had advised the council they supported the plans under which their school would be replaced with a new building.

After Education Director Donald MacKay had outlined the proposals, Stobhill PTA's Alan Simpson and Hazel Flannigan stood up to express their views.

Mr Simpson said: "There is no doubt the provision of a new school at Stobhill will provide excellent facilities for learning and support the needs of our pupils and their families.

It is proposed that if Temple and Borthwick close, those schools' pupils would attend Stobhill which would in turn be replaced with a new building by 2006. Mr Simpson urged parents at Temple and Borthwick to visit Stobhill and added "Any parent who sends their child to Stobhill will not be disappointed with the education they receive.

Colette Pemberton, who has two children at Borthwick, said "Putting buildings first is not necessarily best for Midlothian children in rural schools."

She argued Borthwick was a 21st century school with good facilities and added: "By the time our children go to high school they are self-confident, self-assured and able to make the transition."

Henry Graham, also representing Borthwick, said over £100,000 had been spent on school renovations since 1999 and added: "Any business I know would not abandon the investment."

To huge applause, Mr Graham concluded: "Let Borthwick play an important part in what I believe are exciting times for Midlothian."

Speaking on behalf of Temple, school board members Ross Blair and Irene Stewart both asked councillors: "What's the rush?"

Ms Stewart asked if the securing of Public Private Partnership funding depended on the closure of the five rural schools and said: "Your proposal concentrates on finance not education."

In a damning verdict on what she saw as the council's removal of choice, Ms Stewart said: "Your message is clear – if parents want a choice they shouldn't live in Midlothian."

She said: "The new Stobhill school might be completed by September 2006 but it might not.

"You intend to sacrifice at least two years of their education to be undertaken on a building site."

When the meeting was opened to the floor, many people were anxious to put forward their views.

Temple farmer Robert Osborne said there were several families at his farm with children at the local school and said: "It's not just an education issue. It's a rural issue and it's an employment issue."

Among several children who made themselves heard was a young boy who asked: "Why are you closing the rural schools when there's nothing wrong with them?"

Adam Montgomery assured people at the meeting that all concerns and views would be taken into account when the final decision was made.

Powerful and emotional presentations have been made by parents of the closure threatened schools during the first week of public consultation meetings on Midlothian's £38.5m schools' shake-up.

The proposal includes the closure of five rural schools, refurbishments, mergers, closures and the building of seven new schools.

Council Leader Adam Montgomery, who has chaired each meeting, said: "The meetings have been very well attended and we have heard very full presentations from each school on the proposals. Either 14 or 15 councillors out of the 18 council members have attended each night to hear these views because of the importance of the issue."

The majority of people attending the meetings are opposed to the proposed closure of five rural schools.

Councillor Montgomery added: "We have had very powerful and emotional presentations made to us from parents at these meetings and every one of them clearly has the best interest of their child, children and community at heart.

"As a council, we too must have the educational interests of this generation of school-children and future generations uppermost – all balanced with the resources available to us. The purpose of the consultation meetings is to listen to the points that are being made, to give as much information as possible before we, as a council make any decision."

The final two meetings were held this week – at St Mary's RC Primary School, Bonnyrigg on Monday covering St Margaret's RC, Loanhead and Bonnyrigg primary schools and Cockpen Nursery School and at Newbattle High School on Tuesday, covering Bryans and Langlaw primary schools.

The battle to keep open five of Midlothian's rural primary schools has reached new heights.

Midlothian MSP Rhona Brankin last week told the Scottish Parliament: "Midlothian Council's main proposals are to be welcomed – the building of well-equipped primary schools and the much-needed refurbishment of other primary schools. Those schools are in urgent need. However, the proposals to close small rural primary schools have been met with unanimous opposition from parents."

Ms Brankin tabled a motion on the proposed closures of Temple, Borthwick, Howgate, Cousland and Cranston which attracted support from Labour, SNP and Liberal Democrat MSPs.

It read: "That the Parliament notes the grave concerns of parents about the proposed closure of rural primary schools in Midlothian; acknowledges concerns about the short consultation process; recognises that, while the matter of school closure is primarily a subject for local authorities, they must act within the legislative framework of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, the Education (Scotland) Act 1981 and the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc. Act 2000, and further notes that local authorities should be informed by the Scottish Executive's policies on the importance of rural services to sustainable rural communities and the need to promote rural businesses."

Ms Brankin admitted small schools which were no longer viable sometimes had to be closed but added: "Where rural schools are viable – where school rolls are rising, as in Midlothian, where attainment levels are good, and where the buildings are in acceptable condition, albeit with some work being required – I believe rural schools should be supported. That is in line with our policy on sustainable rural communities, and I would add that the population of Midlothian is set to rise considerably over the coming years."

She urged the Scottish Executive to consider updating the existing legislation to ensure there was adequate protection for successful, viable rural primary schools at the heart of their communities.

Ms Brankin also tabled more than 20 written questions to the Scottish Executive on measures being taken to protect rural schools and communities.

Community councils should have had a bigger say in the Midlothian primary education shake-up, according to the Midlothian Federation of Community Councils. Members have agreed unanimously to call on Midlothian Council to review its consultation programme to include a full and meaningful discussion with all community councils in wards affected by the proposals.

The Federation further resolved the following: that highest priority should be given to parents and residents whose schools are up for closure or amalgamation: that the price of replacing or refurbishing urban schools should not be the closure of rural ones: and that rights of parents to have their children educated in accordance with their wishes must be respected.

Federation chairman Archie Pacey said: "Community councils fear that the risk of damage done to the life of communities by the present proposals far outweighs the possible benefits."

Parents have reacted with dismay that it could cost Midlothian Council around £300,000 to purchase portable cabins to house pupils in temporary accommodation.

During last week's public consultation meeting in Dalkeith, education director Donald MacKay confirmed that the local authority intended to purchase four units at a cost of £280,000 to £300,000.

They would initially be sited at Pathhead Primary while the school is being rebuilt. If the council's education plans go according to plan, Pathhead Primary would also house pupils from the closed Cranston Primary.

Cranston school board chairman Jim Murray said: "We had disputed that our school needs refurbishment in the first place. And we are pleased that the Pathhead parents will be getting a new school for their children.

"But if the council were to allocate just half the money it is prepared to spend on this temporary move, then the school board, parents at Cranston and the council could work together to spend it more effectively and create a school environment that not only exceeds the requirements of the 21st century but would last well into the 22nd and 23rd centuries as well."

Cranston parent Jo Church-Olney added: "The more we hear, the less sense it all makes. Why spend all this money when anyone can see that our children are happy, secure and receiving an excellent education where they are.

"At the moment, it costs only £38 per child a year more than the national average to provide our children with all the benefits that everyone knows being in a smaller rural school provides. That is less than £2500 for the whole school, not hundreds of thousands.

"And not the millions that the council is preparing to spend in the years ahead. People in Midlothian would be questioning all of this."

Reproduced with kind permission from The Advertiser.

Letter to the Editor